[release] many release notes pending

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[release] many release notes pending

Boost - Dev mailing list
Just a heads up about the existence of many umerged lib-specific release
notes at:

https://github.com/boostorg/website/pulls

I seem to remember this same issue happened in 1.68. Maybe some other
protocol
is needed for handling release notes.

Best

Joaquín M López Muñoz


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] many release notes pending

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:43 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Maybe some other protocol is needed for handling release notes.

You mean, like, merging them?

Regards

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] many release notes pending

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:43 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Maybe some other protocol is needed for handling release notes.
>
> You mean, like, merging them?
>
> Regards
>

I think a better strategy would be to define release notes in yaml in each
repository and then
have the website builder scrape those release notes.  Merging them all into
a single file is not
working and clearly more work than should be required.

"1_69_0":
    - note: Added perfect forwarding support.
      type: normal
      links:
        - type: trac
          id: 13345
        - type: github-issue
          id: 21
        - type: github-pr
          id: 42
    -  note: Removed public interface.
      type: breaking
    -  note: Deprecated such-and-such.
      type: deprecation

We could have a Cebrerus schema validator file (in boostorg/website) for
the release note language.
The website build could fail (optionally) if any of the release notes did
not meet the validator.

- Jim

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] many release notes pending

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 2018-11-09 11:06 a.m., James E. King III via Boost wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:43 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Maybe some other protocol is needed for handling release notes.
>> You mean, like, merging them?
>>
>> Regards
>>
> I think a better strategy would be to define release notes in yaml in each
> repository and then
> have the website builder scrape those release notes.  Merging them all into
> a single file is not
> working and clearly more work than should be required.

Amen !

Stefan

--

       ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
     


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] many release notes pending

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:10 AM stefan via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 2018-11-09 11:06 a.m., James E. King III via Boost wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:43 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> Maybe some other protocol is needed for handling release notes.
> >> You mean, like, merging them?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> > I think a better strategy would be to define release notes in yaml in
> each
> > repository and then
> > have the website builder scrape those release notes.  Merging them all
> into
> > a single file is not
> > working and clearly more work than should be required.
>
> Amen !
>
> Stefan
>
>
Perhaps a better schema...

1_69_0:
  breaks:
    - note: Removed public something-or-other.
      links:
        - type: trac
          id: 13356
  deprecations:
    - note: >-
        The header boost/pending/whatever.hpp has been moved to
        some other location.  This is a long release note.  Not too
        long, but long enough to show the YAML text operator in use.
        Enjoy.
      links:
        - type: github_pr
          id: 42
  notes:
    - note: made it twice as fast
      comment: github issues and pulls can use the same URL format (the
issue one)
      links:
        - type: github
          id: 21
        - type: github
          id: 79

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] many release notes pending

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:06, James E. King III via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:43 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Maybe some other protocol is needed for handling release notes.
> >
> > You mean, like, merging them?
>
>
> I think a better strategy would be to define release notes in yaml (...)

You mean, reno?

[1] "The note file is a YAML file with several sections."

[2] "Notes can be styled using reStructuredText directives,
and reno’s Sphinx integration makes it easy to incorporate
release notes into automated documentation builds."


[1] https://docs.openstack.org/reno/latest/user/usage.html
[2] https://docs.openstack.org/reno/latest/


Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] many release notes pending

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 2018-11-09 11:41 a.m., Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:06, James E. King III via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:43 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Maybe some other protocol is needed for handling release notes.
>>> You mean, like, merging them?
>>
>> I think a better strategy would be to define release notes in yaml (...)
> You mean, reno?


[...]

Let's not get side-tracked into another tools & languages discussion. I
think the high-order bit of the proposal is to further modularize the
process by letting individual projects manage *their* release notes,
then somehow syndicate them.

If we could already agree on that as a (mid-term) goal, that would be
great. The rest (languages, schemas, tools) can be discussed separately.


Stefan

--

       ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
     


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Further modularization (was: [release] many release notes pending)

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:47, stefan via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2018-11-09 11:41 a.m., Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:06, James E. King III via Boost<[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:43 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> Maybe some other protocol is needed for handling release notes.
> >>> You mean, like, merging them?
> >>
> >> I think a better strategy would be to define release notes in yaml (...)
> > You mean, reno?
>
>
> [...]
>
> Let's not get side-tracked into another tools & languages discussion.
> I think the high-order bit of the proposal is to further modularize the
> process by letting individual projects manage *their* release notes,
> then somehow syndicate them.

Despite I support your views on pushing the modularisation further,
I am as optimistic about pushing it wild
- even American Wrestling has rules :)

Eventually, things will have to integrate somehow, there will have to
be common conventions, formats, tools to make all the wild libs
running free behave at common table.
Someone will have to write those, or shop for them to avoid reinventing.

> If we could already agree on that as a (mid-term) goal, that would be
> great. The rest (languages, schemas, tools) can be discussed separately.

Such separation not practical I see.

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [release] many release notes pending

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 11/9/18 7:06 PM, James E. King III via Boost wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:43 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Maybe some other protocol is needed for handling release notes.
>>
>> You mean, like, merging them?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>
> I think a better strategy would be to define release notes in yaml in each
> repository and then
> have the website builder scrape those release notes.

I hate yaml...

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further modularization

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list

On 2018-11-09 11:56 a.m., Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:47, stefan via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Let's not get side-tracked into another tools & languages discussion.
>> I think the high-order bit of the proposal is to further modularize the
>> process by letting individual projects manage *their* release notes,
>> then somehow syndicate them.
> Despite I support your views on pushing the modularisation further,
> I am as optimistic about pushing it wild
> - even American Wrestling has rules :)
>
> Eventually, things will have to integrate somehow, there will have to
> be common conventions, formats, tools to make all the wild libs
> running free behave at common table.

The approach I would favour doesn't require different projects to agree
on tools or formats. It would only require projects to publish release
notes, and then provide an URL for it, so the toplevel (boost) website
could have a table containing links.

In fact, that's an idea I already brought up in the past about
modularizing documentation: if all projects adopt the practice of
publishing their docs (including release notes) on
boostorg.github.com/<project> (e.g. http://boostorg.github.io/gil/ :-),
all the boost website builder has to do is set up a table with
project-specific references (to docs, release notes, issue trackers,
etc.). In that picture no-one cares how you produce those for your
project (and what issue tracker you use), as long as those references
are published correctly.

Then people can love & hate yaml et al. as much they want, this would
never again have to start a boost-wide discussion. Wouldn't that be nice
? :-)


Stefan

--

       ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
     


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further modularization

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 19:52, stefan via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2018-11-09 11:56 a.m., Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:47, stefan via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Let's not get side-tracked into another tools & languages discussion.
> >> I think the high-order bit of the proposal is to further modularize the
> >> process by letting individual projects manage *their* release notes,
> >> then somehow syndicate them.
> > Despite I support your views on pushing the modularisation further,
> > I am as optimistic about pushing it wild
> > - even American Wrestling has rules :)
> >
> > Eventually, things will have to integrate somehow, there will have to
> > be common conventions, formats, tools to make all the wild libs
> > running free behave at common table.
>
> The approach I would favour doesn't require different projects to agree
> on tools or formats. It would only require projects to publish release
> notes, and then provide an URL for it, so the toplevel (boost) website
> could have a table containing links.
> [...]
> Then people can love & hate yaml et al. as much they want, this would
> never again have to start a boost-wide discussion. Wouldn't that be nice? :-)

Would it? :)

I like to be able to grep through single-page release notes
- content parsing and aggregation would require common serialisation format
I like the common look and structure of release notes
- it would require common conventions about format, TOC, etc.

So, let's keep discussing ;)

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost